ACA, "No thanks I'll just pay the penalty"

[Ser Greguh]

Ser Greguh:

I feel bad for your Don Quixote task of infusing rationality in people's decision making process. Surely, as a former professional gambler, you know that most people do not make rational decisions. That is even without a political party hell-bent on exagerating the negative effects and sometimes outright lying about the piece of legislation to pollute the information pool.

Most people don't. I'm happy to take advantage of that every time I sit down at a poker table.

But I'm not talking to "most people" here, I'm talking to Scot :)

[TrackerNeil]

it does mean that Ron Paul's fantasy of people handing over a $20 bill for having their leukemia treated by the kindly house doctor will never happen.

Can we stipulate that just about any of Ron Paul's fantasies will never really happen?

[IheartTesla]

Yeah guys, I am being facetious about 'free markets'. What I believe is important though is competition amongst insurance providers (for both the new pool and the old pool).

[Tyrion's Third Wife]

Can we stipulate that just about any of Ron Paul's fantasies will never really happen?

Oh, but don't you dare tell me my Ron Paul fantasies won't happen!!!

[Galactus]

Why don't you fuckers just get a real healthcare system rather than faffing around with insurance?

[TrackerNeil]

Why don't you fuckers just get a real healthcare system rather than faffing around with insurance?

Ask Joe Lieberman and the Republican Senate caucus about that, please.

[TerraPrime]

Why don't you fuckers just get a real healthcare system rather than faffing around with insurance?

Snowflake!!!!!

[Ser Greguh]

Why don't you fuckers just get a real healthcare system rather than faffing around with insurance?

Many of us would love to. Best-case is that the ACA is an intermediary to that end goal (despite very few people, if anyone, on either side of the debate actually being happy with it). The don't-ask-don't-tell of Health Care Reform.

(And yes, DADT was an amazingly positive step when it was introduced, and the description of ending the policy as its "repeal" was nonsensical, but that's a wildly separate issue).

[TrackerNeil]

Y'all remember Swordfish in these threads? He used to ask whether the ACA was some kind of Trojan Horse for single-payer. Well, Harry Reid recently said something along the lines of "Yeah, I hope so."

I'm always up-front about that sort of thing. Someone once accused me of wanting to destroy the private health insurance industry, and I replied. "Yes. Yes, I do want that."

[Inigima]

May I suggest that if we aren't going to accept right-wing outlets like Newsmax as credible -- and I don't think we should accept them -- that we refrain from relying on citations from sources like Mother Jones?

[Summah]

The "free market" aspect can never be fully explored given the nature of Medicare which is and will always be a part of our health insurance system. That is not to say that there have not been market forces in the health sector, but it does mean that Ron Paul's fantasy of people handing over a $20 bill for having their leukemia treated by the kindly house doctor will never happen.

As someone with a disability who has had both group insurance and medicare, and except for the pre-existing condition clauses of ACA would otherwise be uninsurable. If I didn't get SSDI I would be royally screwed, healthcare-wise. I have to say that in my experience medicare is far superior to every other insurance company I've ever had. I'm still fighting my last insurance company about stupid billing things and my coverage with them ended 6 months ago. With medicare, I have not had many problems so far (mostly things revolving around coverage limits and their new unclear (to my medical providers) rules about how to get more coverage approved), but they've approved and paid every claim (which is a lot).

Why don't you fuckers just get a real healthcare system rather than faffing around with insurance?

Oh I wish we would get medicare for all, or a new government single payer system or whatever. I really don't think profits should go along with healthcare.

[Sci-2]

Most people don't. I'm happy to take advantage of that every time I sit down at a poker table.

But I'm not talking to "most people" here, I'm talking to Scot :)

It goes back to the issues with having an innumerate society.

I think until education improves politics on this and other issues will be stuck in a quagmire.

[Phaing]

Does the political will exist to make the penalties stiffer to push people into the healthcare pool?

Sure does, just look at the venom coming from the supporters of the ACA towards the rest of us!

They will do their best to break us, whatever it takes.

For the penalties to work they have to be more than the cost of insurance.

Yup, at its gonna be huge, once all the insurance companies have been bankrupted.

Ser Greguh:

I feel bad for your Don Quixote task of infusing rationality in people's decision making process. Surely, as a former professional gambler, you know that most people do not make rational decisions. That is even without a political party hell-bent on exagerating the negative effects and sometimes outright lying about the piece of legislation to pollute the information pool.

You hear that?

Of course, those people in the Govt that want to run your life for you never make anything but the most rational decisions.

Those people are better than the rest of us, don't you know?

Us regular people are just too irrational...

Yeah guys, I am being facetious about 'free markets'. What I believe is important though is competition amongst insurance providers (for both the new pool and the old pool).

Imagine how high your Car insurace would be if you could not shop across state lines.

Same deal with Health Insurace. Break the barriers and you get free trade.

May I suggest that if we aren't going to accept right-wing outlets like Newsmax as credible -- and I don't think we should accept them -- that we refrain from relying on citations from sources like Mother Jones?

I thought you were going to mention MSNBC, but since they get less than 50,000 viewers...

I plan on non-compliance. If I have to get fixed up I don't plan to answer questions like;

"Have you ever been depressed?"

"Have you ever slept with a Bi-sexual Partner?"

"Do you own a gun?"

And have all that information go to the same people that thought Brad Manning was a reliable security risk?

No thank you.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Oh I wish we would get medicare for all, or a new government single payer system or whatever. I really don't think profits should go along with healthcare.

That would make too much sense to get any support in Washington.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SerG,

Most people don't. I'm happy to take advantage of that every time I sit down at a poker table.

But I'm not talking to "most people" here, I'm talking to Scot :)

I appreciate that. At this point I hope the ACA works without any hiccups. I simply fear there may be significant hiccups. I do not presume people will see their self interest the way you see their self interest.

[Sci-2]

You hear that?

Of course, those people in the Govt that want to run your life for you never make anything but the most rational decisions.

Those people are better than the rest of us, don't you know?

Us regular people are just too irrational...

I think you're letting your disagreement of the ACA in principle color your interpretation of what "rational" means. Gerguh's summary of expected value, if I recall my math, is correct.

Now, where I do think some supporters of the ACA err is assuming that people who oppose the ACA must be deluded. There is an argument from principle to oppose it, but from a strict economic standpoint I'm not sure one would be a rational actor for making that argument.

[TrackerNeil]

SerG,

I appreciate that. At this point I hope the ACA works without any hiccups. I simply fear there may be significant hiccups. I do not presume people will see their self interest the way you see their self interest.

I am sure there will be problems, but every big government program that we know and love - Medicare, Medicare Part D - has had the same. We'll all get through this, assuming of course that Republicans eventually accept reality and cooperate in fixing the hiccups. If not...well, I don't know.

[Ser Greguh]

Now, where I do think some supporters of the ACA err is assuming that people who oppose the ACA must be deluded. There is an argument from principle to oppose it, but from a strict economic standpoint I'm not sure one would be a rational actor for making that argument.

I've never heard anyone actually make this argument. "Behaving in a way that is financially foolish" is not anywhere near the same thing as "deluded". Most of the players at any given poker table are behaving in a way that is fiscally foolish. That doesn't make them deluded, it just makes them not very good at poker.

[Phaing]

Now, where I do think some supporters of the ACA err is assuming that people who oppose the ACA must be deluded. There is an argument from principle to oppose it, but from a strict economic standpoint I'm not sure one would be a rational actor for making that argument.

Good point.

I yield the rest of the day to those who would like to post the numbers involved here.

I'll be back tomorrow with a few of my own.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Why don't you fuckers just get a real healthcare system rather than faffing around with insurance?

Because, as soon as it is mentioned, a large pack of loons start shrieking, "socialized medicine", at everyone and people are too stupid to realize it is a good idea.